If you think that vaccinations have saved lives and do save lives & I think that vaccinations have taken lives and continue to take lives - Who is right?

I would go towards the option that has clinical significance and has been scientifically proven to save lives? The only proof you have shown me is equivalent to fake news in the science community.

Listen, i understand being skeptical of those in power, especially big pharma, but you need to realize the flaws in your argument (if you even want to call it that?). History has demonstrated that disease outbreaks cost the government and its citizens extensive amount of money, not to mention the burden it puts on the workforce. Due to this, they provide a vaccine which you only have to take once (maybe twice) to rid yourself forever of that disease. How is that even profitable for vaccination/drug companies? They already make millions off of pills that people have to take daily to manage symptoms of disease, so wouldn't that mean that vaccines are the opposite? Not only that, vaccines are provided to families at no extra cost because they see that the risk of disease outbreak is far to costly in the long term. This is why countries like Italy are now wanting to make it mandatory.

The amount of time and money that goes into the development of a drug or vaccine is actually quite suprising. Research scientists might spend their whole career trying to develop a drug/vaccine and not see a profit in their lifetime. The extent most research companies have to go to finally market drugs to the public/doctors etc is for our own safety. See, scientists are like you and me. They are not working together with the government to take advantage of your average schmuck. Most people get into the development of drugs because they want to do good and protect people from disease.

I am starting to realize you will choose to believe what you want to believe. I cant change your opinion. Hell, I can't even make you realize that what i have told you is a FACT and not an opinion. Just please take the time to look at the other side. Lay off the wacky anti-vaccine videos and maybe look at an article or video that presents the scientific evidence. Sometimes you have to see the word outside your own bias. Sure, its not as flashy and dramatic as believing that the government is always trying to take advantage of us, but sometimes you have to trust things that you might not understand.

If you think that vaccinations have saved lives and do save lives & I think that vaccinations have taken lives and continue to take lives - Who is right?

I would go towards the option that has clinical significance and has been scientifically proven to save lives? The only proof you have shown me is equivalent to fake news in the science community.

Listen, i understand being skeptical of those in power, especially big pharma, but you need to realize the flaws in your argument (if you even want to call it that?). History has demonstrated that disease outbreaks cost the government and its citizens extensive amount of money, not to mention the burden it puts on the workforce. Due to this, they provide a vaccine which you only have to take once (maybe twice) to rid yourself forever of that disease. How is that even profitable for vaccination/drug companies? They already make millions off of pills that people have to take daily to manage symptoms of disease, so wouldn't that mean that vaccines are the opposite? Not only that, vaccines are provided to families at no extra cost because they see that the risk of disease outbreak is far to costly in the long term. This is why countries like Italy are now wanting to make it mandatory.

The amount of time and money that goes into the development of a drug or vaccine is actually quite suprising. Research scientists might spend their whole career trying to develop a drug/vaccine and not see a profit in their lifetime. The extent most research companies have to go to finally market drugs to the public/doctors etc is for our own safety. See, scientists are like you and me. They are not working together with the government to take advantage of your average schmuck. Most people get into the development of drugs because they want to do good and protect people from disease.

I am starting to realize you will choose to believe what you want to believe. I cant change your opinion. Hell, I can't even make you realize that what i have told you is a FACT and not an opinion. Just please take the time to look at the other side. Lay off the wacky anti-vaccine videos and maybe look at an article or video that presents the scientific evidence. Sometimes you have to see the word outside your own bias. Sure, its not as flashy and dramatic as believing that the government is always trying to take advantage of us, but sometimes you have to trust things that you might not understand.

You didnt mention the doctor's "kickbacks" from Pharmacutical companies

How about simple counting? I'm sure you can tell 37 is a much lower number than 350,000... no science involved... just counting.

Polio does still exist, although polio cases have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated more than 350 000 cases to 37 reported cases in 2016. This reduction is the result of the global effort to eradicate the disease. Today, only 3 countries in the world have never stopped transmission of polio (Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria).

Despite the progress achieved since 1988, as long as a single child remains infected with poliovirus, children in all countries are at risk of contracting the disease. The poliovirus can easily be imported into a polio-free country and can spread rapidly amongst unimmunized populations. Failure to eradicate polio could result in as many as 200 000 new cases every year, within 10 years, all over the world.

There is no cure for polio, it can only be prevented. Polio vaccine, given multiple times, can protect a child for life.

the truth wrote:yup nothing new here, hope someone like -- johns hopkins=== confirming the flu shot does not work and infact harm people might make some people finally wake up and smell the coffee

Funny how the actual report wasn't in it and it wasn't someone like "johns hopkins". Sounds like you still haven't read up on the actual author and he's been mentioned in several threads.

First, as Snopes.com has already pointed out, Doshi is not a virologist or an epidemiologist, but rather an anthropologist who studies comparative effectiveness research. He never conducted influenza research at Hopkins. (He’s now an Assistant Professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Pharmacy.) Second, Doshi’s 2013 article was an opinion piece (a “feature”), not an original research article, and it did not report any new findings. Third, it is highly misleading to suggest (as the anti-vax article’s title does) that Doshi somehow represents Johns Hopkins University. At Johns Hopkins Hospital, the flu vaccine is required of all personnel who have contact with patients, as a good-practices effort to minimize the risk that a patient will catch the flu from a caregiver.

Here is an actual report of a study .Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osterholm MT1, Kelley NS, Sommer A, Belongia EA.Author informationErratum inLancet Infect Dis. 2012 Sep;12(9):655.AbstractBACKGROUND:No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.

METHODS:We searched Medline for randomised controlled trials assessing a relative reduction in influenza risk of all circulating influenza viruses during individual seasons after vaccination (efficacy) and observational studies meeting inclusion criteria (effectiveness). Eligible articles were published between Jan 1, 1967, and Feb 15, 2011, and used RT-PCR or culture for confirmation of influenza. We excluded some studies on the basis of study design and vaccine characteristics. We estimated random-effects pooled efficacy for trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) when data were available for statistical analysis (eg, at least three studies that assessed comparable age groups).

INTERPRETATION:Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking. LAIVs consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years). New vaccines with improved clinical efficacy and effectiveness are needed to further reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality.